"Tasword PC" Anyone ?

Alternatively you could try one of the cut down Linux distributions instead of DOS - these come with many word processor options.

it have to be Tasword? Wordstar was much more common.

From what O could glean, that's actually a dos version but I cant be arsed to download it and see.

Ok I DID downloaded it and... README.TXT: ==========

TASWORD.EXE

-----------

PC executable version of the famous ZX Spectrum text processor Tasword

1. You will not need any emulator to run this program! If you are not happy with the Microsoft Word, maybe you will be happy with the Tasword??? This program is an example how to access the printer in the ZXCOMP-ed program. This IS really a text processor (it CAN do printing etc.), but with ZX Spectrum limitations (max 312 lines of text, etc.). This program will bring to you feeling how the word processing looks in the time of the ZX Spectrum, but now on the PC (without the emulator)...

Of course, the program has saving/loading possibility. An example file (TUTOR.TSW) is included, and it will bring to you a short tutorial how to use it (of course, if you want to use it, e.g. if you are a mazochist). To load it, press ALT+A to get a main menu, then select option "L" and type in the file name (TUTOR). This program reads and writes files with extension .TSW. You must not give the extension, the program will do it automatically.

How this program is created

---------------------------

Making this program was not so easy, because the original Tasword has a long BASIC part which is not quite adequate for making a standalone PC executable. The source file was TASWORD2.TAP tape file. First, the BASIC part is modified, so a new basic part looks like:

On 05/11/2012 11:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > So you COULD have done that yourself and answered your own question...

Indeed! But a) it's a .ru website, and b) I got a warning about the file from my browser, so I chickened out. You're obviously braver than me.

well I wouldn't RUN the executable for sure.

Outside of a Dos box in a sandbox virtual machine..

Its a dos version in the sense that its a spectrum emulator and tasword built into a single executable. So you get the whole speccy experiance including rather blocky on screen fonts etc.

Alternatively Borland sidekick was good. A pop up TSR program that was largely driven with wordstar keystrokes. Great for developing code without an IDE. You could simply jump in an out of the editor complete with file in place, with just a hot key combination.

If you're wanting a DOS wordprocessor, I can recommend Borland Sprint. It's even got a few printer drivers built in, and some modern printers can emulate one or more of the printers it can feed.

It's available on at least one abandonware site.

Unfortunately linux and low memory don't seem to mix. I've not found any desktop linux that idles at less than about 64M, making minimum usable ram about 128M.

NT

If you have USB ports on your laptop then Puppy Linux can boot and run from a USB stick. You might find that's ok.

ISTR running Linux and X happily on a machine with 8MB, but that was close on 20 years ago :-)

Current slackware seems to claim 64MB for the install, so your 128MB is probably right - although I think I have a 4-year-old slack install on an old IBM thinkpad w/128MB, and that chugs rather a lot even then. 256MB probably improves things a lot (so long as not running anything heavyweight).

Personally I'd go for DOS with a TCP/IP stack and Wordperfect 5.1. I seem to recall Ami Pro being quite nice back in the day, and I think that ran under MSODS ;)

desktop linux that idles at less than about 64M, making minimum usable ram about

yerrs. Damn Small Linux is a possible distro

But desktop? Not sure it comes with any windowing..Oh apparently it actually DOES!!!

Mmm I would say looking at the screenshots that you will need about 64M RAM to run it with X-windows and apps.

Not many old machines will BOOT from USB even if they have USB ports.

Better to boot from CD or floppy..

y desktop linux that idles at less than about 64M, making minimum usable ra= m about 128M.

Windows 3 with LFN can run happily on 3M, and 95 on 8M. But no GUI linux ca= n run on much less than 128M. DSL, Puppy etc are no exceptions. Sure one ca= n run command line linux or dos on a lot less, but that makes machines a lo= t less useful. Why a minimal ram graphical linux doesn't exist I don't know= . There's no shortage of old laptops about that could have their uses.

NT

Have you actually TRIED?

Sure one can run command line linux or dos on a lot less,

I HAVE seen X windows running on 2M or so on a low res screen. But X-windows is a full featured window system in the way windows 3 never was.

Looking at my system here, the apps themselves - Firefaux, Udderbird, VLC (Im watching telly) and a game I am playing are all > 100MByte memory.

Then the applets are all around the 10-20MB mark - that's little daemons running things like the clock, the weather, the update manager and the menus ...

I'm running about 2GB of memory in total..out of the 4 in the system :-)

That's C++ for ya!

X itself is about 10-12Mbytes

So the problem on a low ram system is likely to be the apps rather than the X server itself

I agree that you aren't likely to run X on a 3M machine!

I know my 512Mbyte system swaps badly with more than one BIG windowed app running on Debian...

I had 4MB. And it was a 386. And I ran Netscape. Slowly.

It's still here if anyone wants a go:

Theo

Which shows you how crude windows 3 was really.

I did run X on some sort of pc unix on 2MB ram.

Then on SCO unix on same ram.

Just about ran X-eyes IIRC.

X is like postscript. A piece of software at least 10 years ahead of the hardware at its inception.

But IIRC first X I saw on Linux was doing fairly well on 4MB and a 486

Motif or XVM or something.

I remember one workplace issuing me a 486 w/16MB and Win95 on it. It was throughly useless for doing anything with, and dumped within a few days in favour of a pentium w/32MB. I can't imagine Win95 doing anything more than booting in 8MB.

I'm reasonably sure I had Win 3.11 running comfortably in 2MB, though.

cheers

Jules